When the Liberal government tabled Bills C-45 (aka the Cannabis Act) and C-46 (aka an act to amend the Criminal Code) back in mid-April, it not only set the tone for a future where cannabis is legal, but for sweeping revisions to Canada’s impaired driving laws as well.

The fact that the government is cracking down on impaired driving with Bill C-46 is no surprise. Once cannabis is widely and legally available, there may very well be an increase in the number of people driving under the influence of THC, and regardless of how well you may drive while stoned, it is of utmost importance that the law and penalties regarding impaired driving are clear, reasonable, and fair.

And Bill C-46 does have some major issues, such as its overly harsh penalties. While I agree that we shouldn’t sell alcohol or cannabis to minors, what I don’t agree with is the huge discrepancy in punishment. If you sold alcohol to a minor in Ontario, the most you’d be looking at is 1 year in jail (and you’d most likely get a fine) whereas if you sold cannabis, you’re facing a maximum of 14 years! This wrongly suggests that cannabis is much more harmful than alcohol and serves to further stigmatize cannabis, at least in the eyes of the law.

Bill C-46 also contains sweeping expansions of police powers to conduct roadside drug and alcohol testing that has some critics seriously concerned over its constitutionality.

Even if you’ve never smoked a joint in your life, the proposed changes in Bill C-46 could still affect you, as impaired driving laws apply not only to cannabis, but to alcohol and other drugs as well.

Among other things, if Bill C-46 passes, the police would be able to demand a breath sample during a traffic stop without needing a reasonable suspicion of impairment (which is required under the current law).

We can also expect lively debates over the constitutionality of these expansions to police power and how they relate to Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.

The new bill would also change the time frame for impaired driving, so instead of committing impaired driving only if you test over the legal limit while driving, you would now be breaking the law if you drove within two hours of being over the legal limit for THC or alcohol.

Last week when contacted by The Hill Times, Bill Blair, the former Toronto police chief and current Liberal MP in charge of legalizing cannabis, said that Bill C-46 may actually get passed before Bill C-45, despite the fact that they were tabled at the same time.

The argument being that Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, is particularly complex and they also still need to decide which House Committees will receive the bills.

As Bill Blair was a 30 year veteran of the Toronto Police Service before he got into politics, we’re not exactly surprised that expanding the powers of the police might take priority over legalizing cannabis.

Regardless, ending prohibition is a massive undertaking and these are only the first steps. We’ll be sure to stay tuned and keep you updated!

  • Robert Wright

    If you are a heavy cannabis user you will still fail their test a week after you indulged this is a joke and will be challenged in court at some point .Trudeau is a privileged lying peace of shit and does not care about the children he only cares to make his rich LP friends richer which I am sure will some how end up making his bank account bigger .

    • Turner Kayston

      Challenged in court, after many more lives are unjustifiably ruined due to this anti-science BS – it’s so sickening!

  • HughJorgen

    I knew, the instant I heard that he put that Bill Blair bastard on this, that legalization was going to be stalled, and manipulated to be prohibition under another name.

    That’s the same man that authored the G20 summit atrocities as police chief of Toronto, under the political climate of the Harpercreeps. (Agents provocateurs, kettling, mass arrests, detentions in squalid conditions). You wouldn’t put control freak cops in charge of cannabis legalization unless you really want to sabotage it.

    No decriminalization, increased enforcement of the existing law… there are still brimstone and fire judges giving people jail time for relatively minor cannabis offenses under some circumstances.

    I voted for this government all the way, even signing up for the party so I could vote to nominate Trudeau and they shamelessly send emails begging for money, several times a day. For what? So they can put me in jail and take away my driver’s license? I’ll not submit to that… I will always fail saliva and blood tests, I’ve been smoking it every day for near 40 years. I’ve never caused an accident in my life (got hit from behind on an icy road once). These twats don’t understand cannabis at all… you can’t correlate “2 ng/mL” blood levels of THC into impairment right across the board.

    Legalization is going to make things WORSE under this government’s plan. Dumbed down, expensive shit, in government controlled environments along with ostracism under the guise of legalization.

    • Turner Kayston

      It’s all anti-science and it will do science more of a disservice than it’s pernicious and fallacious “good intentions”.

      In fact, I think it will hurt our progeny in one way or another – especially if they bump the age higher than 18! Then it’ll be illegal to do actual studies on those under 21 and objective science will be ignored, again… It’s insane for science, for everyone – prohibitionists or rationalists alike.

      • Réal Guy

        Indeed, the 17 ~ 18 period will be some challenge. Not to mention this is CULTURAL GENOCIDE, bit by bit. I’m not even sure we’ll have the right to discuss cannabis the way we do now. Not even within the family core i would bet… To be honest this blinding TrudeauMania kind of reminds me of other (un)famous politicians who once captivated imaginations around the globe!

    • Réal Guy

      Salutations,

      There was an even earlier political “message” sent without *us* (the cannabis consumers) realizing what had happened exactly: Justin MiniHarper Trudeau sent Hilary Geller as *HIS* emissary to organize UNGASS 2016 at the UN – which is the source of their bigot power (via int’l treaties) – while she was “installed ” under Harper actually. Now that’s no wonder when one considers that both Trudeau and Harper voted on mandatory prison sentences and more: they are the 2 sides of a same dime!…

      In addition i’d like to point out that the bully approach of Trudeau’s “legaleezation” has cost a human life in Montréal/Qc only 5 months after he got a strong majority mandate, over ~8 oz which didn’t even all belong to the victim. How come? Why?? Anyway the SPVM-GTi blamed the dead after shooting him directly at the head with a “cinetic wand”, apparently at unsafe distance (e.g. murder in disguise)… Meanwhile late TV news related the history showing burning cars instead (…), etc.

      IMHO if there had been any love in this non-sensical project then Blair wouldn’t be anywhere on the political map, for starters, nor Hilary Geller who should have started looking for a job the day capt’ain Itnoc was elected: In The Name Of Children!…

      What’s hard to take is all those bigot anti-cannabic prohibitionists taking over our institutions, making a dime out of it in the process. For example one of them claimed it takes 7 ~ 10 days in her treatment center to cure an “addict”… While her opponents might as well point out either that’s too short for a real “case”, or it’s just too long for a normal human being! Another famous doctor (and star/activist) likes to refer to the ’70s when we got 1 p-c THC (from leaves, but she wouldn’t say or know), etc…

      It’s all taking place in reality, but the piling up of bigot abuse increasingly sounds like a nightmare: they’ve lost control and the reason is all too simple, really… MONEY.

      Imagine, canola oil was selling around 2.16 $/l a few weeks ago. CBD oil, 129 $/60 ml, which translates as a net ninety-nine thousand percent (or so) margin considering everyone got paid in the canola chain. Meaning the rest is the cost of prohibition.

      Now remember that some provinces are under-represented comparatively to the expected ratio, which for Québec is a tenfold shortage, or in other words we’re about to systematically pump our green money toward any province except our own!… Hence, combining this factor with the cost of prohibition, which i just mentioned, that could result in extreme socio-econo-politic forces which IMO shall eventually prove the project was programmed to fail, after all, to vilify cannabis further, because they never get enough of love-of-hate/hate-of-love! And it’s *everywhere*…

      • HughJorgen

        Yep, people die because of police authority over a little cannabis. I’m especially sorry to hear about that in my own country, usually that sort of thing happens in the Excited States of America. (Why would a paramilitary SWAT team be used for a marijuana bust?)

        There’s a wave of subtle anti-cannabis propaganda coming up now that cannabis legalization looms in Canada and several states in the U.S. Some of it is disguised as informative, first listing some benefits, then parroting (often conflicting) old information to try to sow FUD. You can easily see it’s purpose with a little critical thinking.

        As for the money, I’ve often said that there’s no reason cannabis should cost any more than a commodity like coffee. It could cost LESS even, because it doesn’t have to be imported but I will grant that indoor growing does cost money. (One good outdoor harvest a year though… outdoor can be even better if one knows what genetics to use, when and where to put them out, and finish them properly etc.)

        Indeed, they will leave laws on the books criminalizing all non-government cannabis when this is made to fail, and they claw it back later and after that it will remain illegal for a long time.

  • Turner Kayston

    It’s all sophistry, not science.

    After all, we objectively know through science that alcohol damages the brain, in any and all disproportionate amounts – that’s a fact. Cannabis on the other hand, does no damage the brain, another science fact…

    I tried to link to the scientists who prove these points (UK Professor David Nutt, neuropsychopharmacologist / psychiatrist) UK government, drugs adviser and others, but my comments seem to get filtered.

    In any case, be sure to check these too:


    Cannabis Use and Driving: Evidence Review (March 2017) from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.


    Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002.

    To quote it:
    “Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk”


    The Journal of Drug Policy and Practice – Volume 10, issue 3 – fall 2016
    Why a 5 ng/ml THC Limit is Bad Public Policy – and the Case for Tandem per se DUID Legislation:

  • bob

    fucking moronic lowlifes………BC. separate